|
|
Allegations of Sexual
Abuse |
|
|
|
|
Statements collected in
support of the appeals of men convicted of a pack-rape had the look of a
"jack-up", one of the appeal judges has said. Justice William Young
said yesterday that he and the other two Appeal Court judges did not have to
decide if the statements were true, but did have to consider the likelihood
of them swaying a jury. "It does look like
a jack-up, and there would be a real risk that that is the way a jury would
see it," he said. An e-mail from one
statement-maker to another described the complainant as a "slapper"
and described the alleged incident as "a good fun time". One asked the other to
read his draft statement and then prepare his own statement, but with some
differences. One of the defence
lawyers, Greg King, agreed some of the words were unfortunate but said they
did not show collusion or conspiracy to collude. The court has reserved
its decision on the conviction appeals of Tauranga fireman Warren Graham
Hales, 41, Mt Maunganui businessman Peter Mana McNamara, 47, and two men,
aged 53 and 48, whose names are suppressed. Hales was given
5<<1/2>> years' jail. He has not appealed against the term but
McNamara, who was given seven years, and the other men, who received eight
and 8<<1/2>>-year terms, have appealed against their sentences. A woman, now 38, told
police in 2004 that she had been pack-raped in a hut in Mt Maunganui in
January 1989. The four accused said she consented to group sex. A jury in the High
Court at Wellington found the four guilty last year of rape and abduction.
The two unnamed men were convicted of extra sex charges. At the appeal hearing,
the Crown questioned the motives and the process used in collecting
statements to back up the appeal. Recently e-mails were
disclosed showing part of the preparation of the statements. They were revealed only
after the Crown said it wanted to cross-examine three of the statement-makers
if it did not get the information. The proposed new evidence was said to support
what Hales had said at his trial, that he believed the woman had consented. He said they met a few
days later at a concert and she had rubbed his body and been friendly, which
would have been at odds with the brutality she said had occurred. The complainant denied
being at the concert or being friendly toward Hales. Crown lawyer Brent
Stanaway said the evidence of two men in particular had doubtful value and no
credibility. The Crown's other
lawyer, Mark Zarifeh, defended remarks he had made to the jury at the end of
the trial. He agreed that it would have been better if he had not said that,
if the defence was to be believed, the complainant was a slut, but said it
still starkly highlighted the contrast between the two sides. At the appeal, the Crown
was criticised for having broken "rape shield" rules by inviting
the jury to consider the woman's character, rather than whether her evidence
was believed. |
